Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC v. Unruh

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas
DecidedJune 26, 2020
Docket4:20-cv-04038
StatusUnknown

This text of Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC v. Unruh (Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC v. Unruh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC v. Unruh, (W.D. Ark. 2020).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-4038

TREVOR UNRUH DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT Before the Court is Plaintiff Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC’s Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default. (ECF No. 9). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 13) and Motion for Bill of Costs. (ECF No. 15). The Court finds that no responses are necessary and that these matters are ripe for consideration. I. BACKGROUND On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed this case against Defendant Trevor Unruh. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant defaulted in paying Plaintiff for agricultural inputs sold to him on credit pursuant to a Credit Sales and Services Agreement in the principal amount of $99,147.10. On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff served its complaint and summons on Defendant. On June 10, 2020, Plaintiff moved for entry of default against Defendant. The Clerk of Court subsequently entered default as to Defendant, who to date has not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint. On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed motions for default judgment and for a bill of costs. Plaintiff seeks a sum certain from Defendant in the amount of $125,260.38, with additional pre-judgment finance charges accruing from May 25, 2020 onward at the rate of 1.4%, or $1,388.06, per month. Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees of $2,952.25, costs of $400.00, and post-judgment interest on all amounts at the highest rate allowed by law until paid. Plaintiff has provided affidavits and itemized billing statements setting out these amounts. The Court will begin by addressing Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default. The Court will then take up Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and bill of costs. A. Entry of Default Plaintiff moves the Court for the Clerk of Court to enter default in this matter. The Clerk of Court properly entered default against Defendant on June 25, 2020. However, Plaintiff’s motion

remains pending. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default (ECF No. 9) will be denied as moot. B. Default Judgment A district court may enter a default judgment when a party fails to appropriately respond in a timely manner. See, e.g., Inman v. Am. Home Furniture Placement, Inc., 120 F.3d 117, 119 (8th Cir. 1997). If the court determines that a defendant is in default, the court shall take as true factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages. Everyday Learning Corp. v. Larson, 242 F.3d 815, 818 (8th Cir. 2001). However, the court must ensure that “the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action” prior to entering final judgment.

See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 2010). The unchallenged facts of this case are that on February 16, 2016, the parties executed a Credit Sales and Services Agreement. In 2018, Defendant purchased agricultural inputs on credit from Plaintiff under the terms of the agreement. If not paid within thirty days of the date of the first statement for each purchase, a finance charge would accrue each month on the unpaid amount. Defendant failed to make payments as required by the agreement and has an unpaid principal balance of $99,147.10, which accrues a finance charge of 1.4%, or $1,388.06, per month until paid. As of May 25, 2020, Defendant’s total unpaid balance was $125,260.38. After reading the pleadings and the papers on file, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a legitimate cause of action against Defendant for breach of contract. Now the Court will turn to damages. Plaintiff asks that the Court enter default judgment on a sum certain, a pre-judgment finance charge, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and post-judgment interest on all amounts. These amounts are all ascertainable from Plaintiffs’ evidence, so an evidentiary hearing on damages is not necessary. Taylor v. City of Ballwin, Mo., 859 F.2d 1330,

1333 (8th Cir. 1988). The Court will separately address the requests for damages. 1. Sum Certain After determining that a default judgment should be entered, the Court must determine the amount and character of the recovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(B). A default judgment may be entered on a sum certain upon the plaintiff’s request, with an affidavit showing the amount due. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1). Plaintiff seeks a sum certain from Defendant in the amount of $125,260.38, with additional pre-judgment finance charges accruing from May 25, 2020 onward at the rate of $1,388.06 per month. Plaintiff has provided the affidavit of Ashley Goodman, Plaintiff’s credit manager, which

sets out that Plaintiff is the holder of Defendant’s open account which, as of May 25, 2020, reflected an owed, unpaid balance of $125,260.38, with a finance charge of $1,388.06 accruing each month. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff’s exhibits establish its requested sum certain of $125,260.38. The Court will award that amount. Plaintiff also asks for a pre-judgment finance charge. Although the parties’ contract provides for a finance charge to accrue monthly on unpaid accounts like Defendant’s, Plaintiff appears to ask that the Court award the finance charge up to the entry of judgment. The Court finds that appropriate and will award a pre-judgment finance charge of $1,388.06, measured from May 25, 2020. 2. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs The parties’ Credit Sales and Services Agreement provides that if Defendant fails to make payments as required, he will be responsible for payment of Plaintiff’s collection costs, including expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. 2-2, p.1). Accordingly, Plaintiff asks the Court to award it reasonable attorneys’ fees of $2,952.25, and costs of $400.00.

In support of its requested attorneys’ fees, Plaintiff provides an itemized billing sheet reflecting the amount of work done by counsel on this matter and the amounts charged. Two attorneys, one law clerk, and one paralegal worked on this matter between November 2019 and May 2020, ranging from initial collection efforts to litigation of the case at bar. Plaintiff’s billing sheet provides as follows: Roger Rowe, a partner, billed 1.45 hours at the rate of $275/hour, for a total of $398.75. Ralph Scott, an associate, billed 9.5 hours at the rate of $150/hour for work done in 2019 and $175/hour for work done in 2020, for a total of $1,652.50. Hannah Howard, a law clerk, billed 2.35 hours at the rate of $90/hour, for a total of $211.50. Stacie Lake, a paralegal, billed 6.6 hours at the rate of $100/hour for work done in 2019 and $105/hour for work done in

2020. In all, Plaintiff seeks $2,952.25 in reasonable attorneys’ fees. “In a diversity case, state law generally governs the question whether there is a right to attorney’s fees.” Ferrell v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 393 F.3d 786, 796 (8th Cir. 2005). Arkansas is the forum, so the Court applies the Arkansas choice-of-law rules in determining which state law governs the issue. Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC v. Unruh, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helena-agri-enterprises-llc-v-unruh-arwd-2020.